On 2/17/07, SonOfLilit <sonoflilit / gmail.com> wrote:

> Oh no, you don't wanna do that: What if you're a library and a user
> assumes :dup is defined? What if you use a library that assumes it and
> don't know about it?

Um.  then no one uses your library?

I've already made it clear I don't think it's a good idea in the
general sense, I'm just saying that if the behaviour change is
necessary or important to you, it's easy to add.

Whether or not it's good practice is an entirely seperate question.
I would be tempted to bludgeon library writers who find it convenient
to undef core methods, to be honest.

For client code that doesn't have to play nice with others?  Have at
it! (You *are* writing tests that make sure your code is working
right, aren't you? :)  )